Hi Peter,
I have been using Segue Silk Performer in the past and was always able to get a load
of 500 on a similar machine described below with good results. I am actually trying
to replace Silk Performer with JMeter.
I am trying to see how much load one Jmeter client can handle. I am planning to use
several clients as you suggested but there are only so many machines available. My
plan is to get up to a 5000 virtual user load going. If your approximation of 75
virtual users per machine is used, that would yield about 67 client machines to
generate such a load!
I suppose no one has used Jmeter to the extent that I am planning.
mabel
Peter Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
to my knowledge, even if you use a commercial product like mercury.
You still can't simulate 250 threads from one system without it eating
a ton of memory. In fact, I believe mercury doesn't recommend you try
it, unless you're using a beefy dual or quad CPU server with 8Gb of
RAM, Gigabit ethernet and Gigabit router.
in fact, since mercury prefers to save the results to a database,
you'd have a hard time doing it from one system. Mercury happens to
have a good reputation and is considered a reliable testing tool.
I've been able to go up to 75 threads with JMeter with decent
performance. For more than 100 threads I always use multiple client
machines.
peter
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:29:06 -0400, Michael Stover wrote:
>
> So what's the problem, exactly?
>
> -Mike
>
> On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 20:21, Remedy QA wrote:
> > It seems Jmeter is a memory hogger. If given more memory, it will keep consuming.
> > I am using JMeter nightly build of June 12.
> >
> > During my test run of approximately 50 minutes, with 250 virtual users on one GUI
> > Jmeter client, it managed to consume about 1 GB of real memory. As the test
> > continued, the memory just kept diminishing. The garbage collecting (minor
> > collecting) happened about every 20 to 60 seconds. The CPU spikes happen when
> > there are GCs.
> >
> > I also ran the same test on a machine with only 1 GB of RAM. When the test was
> > over, real memory was at about 32mb.
> >
> > I tried with non-GUI mode but several threads hung and never was able to finish.
> >
> > So it seems that if I use a machine with more memory and give it a bigger heap, it
> > just consumes as much as it can. I don't think 250 virtual users for the machine
> > type I use is too much load. There must be something I am missing. Any help
> > appreciated.
> >
> > I ran a test with the following configuration:
> >
> > Single JMeter Client on Windows 2000 Server, 2 GB RAM, single 2.8 Ghz Pentium 4
> > CPU. JDK 1.4.2_04
> >
> > JMeter JVM settings:
> > set HEAP=-Xms1280m -Xmx1280m
> > set NEW=-XX:NewSize=512m -XX:MaxNewSize=512m
> > set DEBUG=-verbose:gc -XX:-PrintTenuringDistribution -XX:+PrintGCDetails
> > -XX:+PrintGCTimeStamps -XX:+PrintGCApplicationConcurrentTime
> > -XX:+PrintGCApplicationStoppedTime
> >
> > All other JVM settings are the defaults that came with jmeter.bat.
> >
> > JMeter output set to CSV, jmeter and jorphan logging set to warning.
> >
> > Jmeter script:
> >
> > Test Plan
> > ThreadGroup - 250 virtual users, ramping up every 5 seconds. Loop once.
> > Aggregate Listener
> > Simple Controller
> > 8 HTTP Requests in here
> > 3 Aggregate Listeners in here
> > Runtime Controller - 45 minutes total for all users.
> > 33 HTTP Requests in here
> > 2 Aggregate Listeners in here
> > Simple Controller
> > 2 HTTP Requests in here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> --
> Michael Stover
> Apache Software Foundation
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
